Federal Court Grants Judicial Review and Remands Case Due to Overlooked Evidence

OUTCOME: Allowed

Date: 20260715 Docket: T-2469-24 Citation: 2026 FC 953 Ottawa, Ontario, July 15, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME_1]: [NAME_2] Applicant and The ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT (Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario on July 15, 2026 and edited for syntax, grammar, case citations, and relevant provisions)

I. Overview [ 1 ] The highly disruptive Covid-19 pandemic saw many Canadians lose their jobs or work significantly reduced hours. To help alleviate the financial strain that many Canadians were facing at the time, the Canadian government put in place a suite of relief benefits which included the [NAME_3] [[NAME_3]] under the [NAME_3] Act , SC 2020, c 5, s 8 [ [NAME_3] Act ]. The Applicant [NAME_2] applied for and received the [NAME_3] during periods 1-7 of the benefit, which spanned from March to September 2020. [ 2 ] In 2022, the Canada Revenue Agency [[NAME_4]] advised [NAME_2] that they were reviewing her eligibility for the [NAME_3] and requested documents demonstrating that she met the eligibility criteria, specifically, the requirement that she did not earn more than $1,000 during the benefit periods. In August 2023, the [NAME_4] informed [NAME_2] that she was not eligible for the [NAME_3] during any of the periods during which she collected it. [ 3 ] [NAME_2] requested a second review and another [NAME_4] agent [Agent] found that [NAME_2] was eligible for the benefit during periods 1—4 and overturned the first decision as it related to those periods. The Agent found, however, that she was ineligible for [NAME_3] during periods 5—7, spanning from July to September 2020, because she was employed and earned over $1000 [Decision]. [NAME_2] now seeks judicial review of the Decision as it relates to her ineligibility for periods 5—7. [ 4 ] I am satisfied that [NAME_2] has demonstrated a sufficiently serious shortcoming with the Decision that warrants this Court’s intervention. The application for judicial review thus will be granted.

II. Analysis [ 5 ] The parties submit, and I agree, that the overarching issue is whether the Decision is reasonable. This means that the presumptive reasonableness standard applies to the review of the Decision. The reviewing court will intervene only if the party making the challenge demonstrates “that there are sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision such that it cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency.” As well, the reviewing court generally will not interfere with a decision-maker’s factual findings – it is not the court’s role to reweigh or reassess the evidence before the decision-maker: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 [ Vavilov ] at paras 10, 100, 125. [ 6 ] The Respondent raises two preliminary issues. The first is that the Attorney General of Canada properly should have been named as the Respondent. I agree and the style of cause is amended accordingly with immediate effect. The second is that the Applicant seeks to rely on new evidence that was not before the Agent. I find it unnecessary to address this issue in the circumstances because the matter will be sent back for redetermination exclusively on the record that was before the Agent. [ 7 ] Turning to the parties’ arguments, [NAME_2] submits the Decision is unreasonable because it does not grapple with her evidence that she was overpaid by her employer during the relevant periods. She concedes that the payments she received from her employer during the relevant periods amounted to over $1,000, contrary to the $1,000 threshold mandated in section 1 of the Income Support Payment (Excluded Nominal Income) Regulations , SOR/2020-90 under the [NAME_3] Act . [ 8 ] [NAME_2] submits, however, that while the Agent acknowledged the overpayments, they did not explain how the overpayments were taken into account when they calculated [NAME_2]’s income. In her view, because of the negligible amounts by which she surpassed the $1,000 cutoff, a reasonable adjustment of her income to reflect the overpayment materially would have affected whether her income was above the statutory threshold. [ 9 ] The evidence discloses that [NAME_2] was overpaid a sum of $1,077.88 between May and October 2020, which overlaps with [NAME_3] periods 5—7. In her explanation letter to the Agent, [NAME_2] notes that because of the overpayment errors, “my pay and hours on my pay stubs […] are inaccurate.” [NAME_2] also submitted evidence that she had to repay her employer the entire amount she was overpaid. [ 10 ] The Respondent submits that the [NAME_3] criteria are non-discretionary. In their view, it was up to [NAME_2] to provide sufficient information relating to her income and to demonstrate that she did not earn more than $1,000 during the relevant periods. According to the Respondent, she failed to satisfy this burden. The Respondent submits [NAME_2] did not provide evidence that the overpayment is properly attributable to the relevant periods. The Agent, says the Respondent, reasonably considered [NAME_2]’s evidence and submissions, and reasonably found, based on her pay stubs and bank statements, that she earned more than $1,000 during the relevant periods. [ 11 ] I find that the Respondent, in their submissions, impermissibly bolsters the Agent’s reasons and asks this Court to do the same. Acknowledging that the Court must review the decision holistically and in light of the record before the decision-maker, I determine that, apart from acknowledging her submissions regarding the overpayment, the Agent here did not grapple with them at all: Vavilov , above at paras 96-97, 103. [ 12 ] This leads me to believe that the Agent failed to account for a central submission put forward by [NAME_2] – i.e. that her pay stubs were an inaccurate representation of the amounts she earned during the relevant periods – contrary to the responsiveness that Vavilov guides (at paras 127—128). Having not questioned that she was overpaid, and that the period of overpayment overlapped with the periods during which [NAME_2] received the [NAME_3], the Agent was bound to explain why they did not deduct any amounts to account for the overpayment. They failed to do so, and the Respondent cannot provide now a rationale for why no deductions occurred.

III. Conclusion [ 13 ] For the above reasons, [NAME_2]’s judicial review application will be granted, with the decision set aside and the matter sent back for redetermination by a different [NAME_4] agent. [ 14 ] [NAME_2] has not sought costs on this application, while the Respondent requested costs if they were successful. In light of [NAME_2]’s success on this application, no costs are awarded.

JUDGMENT in T-2469-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The style of cause is amended with immediate effect to identify the Respondent as the Attorney General of Canada, instead of the Canada Revenue Agency. The judicial review is granted. The second review decision dated July 10, 2024 of the Canada Revenue Agency [[NAME_4]] is set aside, with the matter remitted to a different [NAME_4] agent for redetermination. No costs are awarded. "[NAME_1]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-2469-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME_2] v The ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING:

HELD VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: july 15, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME_1] J. DATED: JULY 15, 2026 APPEARANCES: [NAME_2] For The Applicant [NAME_5] [NAME_8] For The RespondentS SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent